Water poverty index (WPI) is widely considered a simple and clear tool to evaluate the effects of combined factors on water shortage and resources stress. In this research, we tried to focus on water tensions in the upstream part of the Karoon basin in Iran for analyzing the water status of the area. For this purpose, the required data were firstly obtained by preparing a report from the Water Authority, Agricultural part, and the Water and Wastewater Organization of Borujerd County. Then, the value of the WPI was estimated at the sub-basin scale of the large Karoon River in the Borujerd-Dorood Watershed (Iran) considering as a resource, the possibility to access, socio-economic capacity, uses, and environmental quality criteria. Results of this research indicated a variation range between 6.6 and 18.2, obtaining the lowest point for its current environmental condition and the highest point due to the easy access. The highest values of each criterion show the better conditions that lead to less water poverty in that sub-basin area. In general, the value of WPI in the study area is approximately 67.65, according to the classification of the Ecology and Hydrology center of Wallingford, this sub-basin is placed in a low to moderate range of water poverty. Given the multidimensional nature of the WPI and considering all the factors affecting the availability or lack of water resources as well as economic and social implications for the rural inhabitants devoted to agriculture and pasture, we conclude that this index can be considered as a useful tool in prioritizing the critical areas and an effective step to develop optimal use of water resources.
Resumen
El Índice de Pobreza Hídrica (WPI) se considera, en general, una herramienta simple y clara para evaluar los efectos de factores combinados sobre la escasez de agua y la tensión de los recursos hídricos. En esta investigación, intentamos centrarnos en las problemáticas hídricas en las cabeceras de montaña de la cuenca de Karoon en Irán para analizar el estado de los recursos hídricos. Para este propósito, los datos requeridos se obtuvieron en primer lugar mediante la preparación de un informe de la Autoridad del Agua, la parte Agrícola y la Organización de Agua y Saneamiento del Condado de Borujerd. Luego, se estimó el valor del WPI a escala de subcuenca del río Karoon considerando como recurso la posibilidad de acceso, capacidad socioeconómica, usos y criterios de calidad ambiental. Los resultados de esta investigación indicaron un rango de variación entre 6,6 y 18,2, obteniendo el punto más bajo por su condición ambiental actual y el punto más alto por el fácil acceso. Los valores más altos de cada criterio muestran las mejores condiciones que conducen a una menor pobreza hídrica en esa subcuenca. En general, el valor de WPI es aproximadamente 67,65, según la clasificación del centro de Ecología e Hidrología de Wallingford, esta subcuenca se ubica en un rango de pobreza hídrica de baja a moderada. Dado el carácter multidimensional del WPI y considerando todos los factores que afectan a la disponibilidad o falta de recursos hídricos, así como las implicaciones económicas y sociales para la población dedicada, principalmente a la agricultura y la ganadería, podemos concluir que este índice puede ser considerado como una herramienta útil para esta región priorizar las áreas críticas y un paso efectivo para el desarrollo y uso óptimo de sus recursos hídricos.
Water ScarcityHydrological issuesKaroon river basinMountain water resourcesÍndice de pobreza hídricaproblemática hídricacuenca del río Karoonrecursos hídricos de montañaIntroduction
Water is an indispensable resource for the humankind and natural ecosystems, and its conservation is recorded in the sustainable development’s goals (SDGs) and challenges number (SDG 6) (Mugagga & Nabaasa, 2016; Weststrate et al., 2019). According to, water scarcity is recognized as one of the most important issues of the current century, which can aggravate a future multifaceted crisis during the next half-century (OhIsson, 2000; Rijsberman, 2006). Therefore, the importance of water quality and quantity for terrestrial life and adequate water supply is a prerequisite for the sustainable socio-economic development and developing of efficient land management plans and, especially, also for water production and the maintaining in mountain areas as the water tower of humidity island (Viviroli et al., 2003; Alessa et al., 2008; Vargas-Pineda et al., 2020; Yegemova et al., 2018). However, water stress is not limited to water aspects, but it also affects Water, Energy, and Food (WEF) chain (FAO, 2014), which is a challenge of developing countries emphasizing an urgent need for integration of these sectors (Pardoe et al., 2018) or soil quality (Kiani-Harchegani et al., 2019; Kiani-Harchegani & Sadeghi, 2020b; Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2020).
In the last decades, a worldwide evolution of urbanization has led to an increase in population rates and rising economic growth (Colantoni et al., 2016; Salvati & Carlucci 2016). Urbanization has shown a major effect on the production waste and decreased of water quality due to water contamination, deforestation, and human activities, as a result, water for human use has become in several territories inaccessible (Diwakar & Thakur, 2012). In this situation, water resources are exposed to various pollutants, and their quality is very low (Kumar et al., 2019).
Nowadays, proper and efficient management of water resources has become a sophisticated issue and it is impossible to acquire the fundamental aims of development, such as the elimination of poverty, fair development, and environmental protection without an accurate estimate and have a multidimensional view on water resources management (Koirala et al., 2020). Likewise, droughts, like a natural calamity, are threats to human communities and environment, which will be influenced by a growing water demand (Sullivan et al., 2006; Brown & Matlock, 2011). The ongoing adverse trends in the status of water resources worldwide and the prediction of an intensifying critical situation in coming years have prompted researchers and international organizations to propose various indices for evaluating the quantitative and qualitative status in different parts of the world (Sullivan, 2002; Sullivan et al., 2003).
The vulnerability of water resources has become a major issue in recent studies. Brown & Matlock (2011) stated the importance of developing indices for water use, water existence, and water poverty. Among these mentioned indices introduced in this regard, the Water Poverty Index (WPI) is attracting considerable interest due to its comprehension (Sullivan et al., 2002). WPI evaluates the status of regional water resources based on specific criteria and determines the position of each region in comparison to other ones (Sullivan & Jemmali, 2014; Jemmali, 2017; El-Gafy, 2018; Koirala et al., 2020). This index consists of five main components, which each of them has different sub-criteria. These five components are a resource, access, capacity, use, and environment (Sullivan, 2002). Sullivan et al. (2006) pointed out some specific applications of WPI at various level including community, region, and basin area and emphasized the importance of different scales for water resources management. They proved that specified scale information might not necessarily reflect the same conditions on the other scales. The analysis of elements of WPI indicated that access and resource criteria in basin and uses, environment, and capacity criteria were the most variable. WPI is an interdisciplinary measure that illustrates the relationship between the welfare of a household and level of access to water, as well as, the impacts of water shortage on human societies (Wurtz et al., 2019). Such an index makes it possible to rank different countries and societies in terms of physical and socioeconomic factors (Jafari Shalamzari & Zhang, 2018).
Manandhar et al. (2012) calculated WPI to evaluate water resources in the Kali Gandaki river basin in Nepal. The results showed that WPI value varied from 37.1 to 56.5 within the studied basin. Shakya (2012) estimated the WPI and mapped the water poverty at low, medium, and high scales in the Inderawati River basin located in the central Nepal region. The average WPI over the whole basin was 52.5 (equal to medium water poverty) and the computational values of water resources existence and capacity were reported differently in upstream and downstream regions. It was revealed that water resources drying, minor access, deforestation and chemical fertilizers were the most important factors in water poverty in the studied area. Cho & Ogwang (2014) in their research in Canada expressed that the WPI is a tool based on quantitative data to measure the level of water poverty in a community, region, or country, and considered that the use of this method in the different regions needs more modifications. Thakur et al. (2017) evaluated the WPI in the upstream of the Bagmati River in Nepal and showed that WPI can be an effective tool in the integrated water resources and comprehensive plan of water consumption to achieve sustainable development aims. Also, van der Vyver (2013) researched in the Wall Trigol area of South Africa to determine the difference between the value of the poverty index by using the incremental function and the multiplication function. After calculating the indices for three cities, they concluded that the values of the computational indices had a small difference and also stated that future research should be based on the correction and development of existing functions for calculating WPI. Also, Kojiri (2008) examined the population growth along with economic, social, and environmental development and secondary challenges in water resources management. Due to an increase in the levels of available information and global communications, the methods and the quantitative and qualitative level of information, more comprehensive and precise indices are introduced and presented to develop an evaluation of global water resources status.
Assuming a population of 70 million inhabitants and annual renewable water resources of 130 billion cubic meters, the Falkenmark index for Iran indicated 1850 m3, which, according to this index, the water tension should be lower. Considering the consumption of 88.5 billion m3 of water in different parts of Iran, according to the United Nations index, Iran is characterized by a critical situation using 68% of its renewable water resources (Mohammad Jani & Yazdanian, 2014). On the one hand, the current facts regarding water resources and consumption in Iran indicate the necessity of compilation and calculation of more comprehensive criteria such as WPI to common indices. In this regard, in studies conducted by Asiabi-Hir et al. (2018) and Jafari Shalamzari & Zhang (2018) for Ardabil and Golestan provinces in Iran, the WPI was calculated as 43 and 41.1, respectively. For other basins without WPI, the value (60.4) was applied, presented by Lawrence et al. (2002).
Given the inappropriate distribution of water resources in Iran, the importance of this research should be considered as indispensable. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to apply the WPI and to determine the situation of water poverty in the large Karoon sub-basin. This area has experienced rapid transformations due to land-use changes and the intensification of some specific human activities such as urbanization or grazing, which is representative of some other watersheds from rapid developing countries. This index has not been calculated for a watershed like the Borujerd-Dorood Watershed in the west part of Iran. Therefore, this study could suppose a great advance if applied at the sub-basin scale to help land managers of other areas with similar conditions over the world. We hypothesize that these results could be comparable to other areas in Iran and over the world to develop a large inventory of watersheds with water quality issues. The multi-dimensional nature of WPI considering all affecting factors on water scarcity and availability behind social and economic characteristics would be a useful tool in prioritizing critical mountainous to develop effective steps in optimal planning of water resources.
Materials and MethodsStudy area
The Borujerd-Dorood watershed area (2545.8 km2) is located in the northern part of the Karoon Basin and the south of the Eshtronian. Borujerd-Dorood watershed is managed by the Lorestan Regional Water Company. Figure 1 showed the Borujerd-Dorood watershed location (A), in the Karoon basin (B) and Iran (C).
Borujerd-Dorood watershed location (A), in the Karoon basin (B) and Iran (C).
(Source data: Water Authority, Agricultural part, and the Water and Wastewater Organization of Borujerd County)
Localización de la Cuenca del Borujerd-Dorood, Iran
The Karoon Basin has an area of about 66,675.9 km2, from which 16,908 km2 are covered by relatively flat and wide plains and alluvial areas, and 49,766.9 km2 by relatively rugged altitudes and alluvial zones to a limited extent. Therefore, 74.6% of the Karoon basin area consists of mountainous and highlands and 25.4% of the plain and lowland regions. The Karoon basin is located between the longitude 48° 2’ and 55° 00’, and latitude 29° 55’ to 34° 10’. The highest elevation is the Dena peak in the northeast of the basin, which reaches 4,409 m a.s.l. The lowest elevation of the basin is less than 2 m a.s.l. corresponding to the outlet point of the basin (Persian Gulf connection). According to the hydrological and hydrogeological features, the Karoon basin used to be divided into 42 study areas (Ministry of Energy, 2005), which five are managed and surveyed by the Lorestan province.
The Eshtronian study area is characterized by an extent of 360.4 km2 and is located in the large Karoon basin including 204.5 km2 of a plain region and 155.9 km2 of altitudes. According to the Köppen System for climate classification, the Borujerd-Dorood watershed was located in the BSk region (arid cold) (Peel et al., 2007). There are 18 rain gauge stations in the Borujerd-Dorood study area. For the selection of representative station in plains and heights, these stations have been used because of its long-term period of data. Marek station with a 36-year (1981-2017) record of rainfall events in Mirqasem and the Vanei Station (White Seabury) with 42 years (1975-2017) have been selected as representative stations in the Borujerd-Dorood region. The average annual rainfall in both plains and altitude ranges from 492.8 mm and 510 mm, respectively and also a mean annual temperature of 13°C. Geology is characterized by a karst formation and includes Quaternary alluvial sediments. Soil texture is sand clay and, loamy classes with good fertility and the major land cover is the agricultural land (Taghipour & Sarchoghaei, 2015). Therefore, considering that the upstream areas of this watershed were mostly mountainous and its average annual rainfall is higher than Iran; human interventions for the development of recreation areas and the creation of residential areas has also increased. Also, pasture areas are very common and grazing intensity has led to the destruction of vegetation like other authors mentioned in the past in other countries (Minea et al., 2019; Minea & Moroşanu, 2014). The economy of this region is mostly based on regional and extra-regional trade, agriculture and animal husbandry, as well as the production of industrial and mineral products (Ariapour et al., 2014; Jahangir & Yarahmadi, 2020).
Water Poverty Index
Water resources management and planning without a proper assessment of its status lead to the loss of water resources. Considering the lack of clear-cut criteria for water poverty issues and representative indices of it at different spatial scales, accurate selection of indices and data availability to apply the poverty index is an urgent matter (Manandhar et al., 2012). Various indices are used to evaluate the vulnerability of water resources. In this study, the WPI, a multilateral combination of indices of water and human welfare, has been applied. The WPI consists of five key elements; each of them has several sub-criteria. In the current study, criteria and sub-criteria have been selected based on the situation of current data in the Iranian water bodies. The required information and data in the computation of WPI were obtained from the Water Office, Agricultural part, and Water and Wastewater Organization of Borujerd County. This index includes five major components: Resource (R), Access (A), Capacity (C), Use (U), and Environment (E) (Juran et al., 2017).
The WPI can be posed in terms of an equation (1) applied for a specific location as presented by Sullivan et al. (2003) and Sullivan et al. (2006) as follows.
It is possible to define the weight (W1, W2,… W5) for each criterion including Resource (R), Access (A), Use (U), Environment (E) and Capacity (C) where the weights are non-negative (Asiabi-Hir et al., 2018). The weighting of various criteria is given in Table 1.
Weighting of various criteria to calculate the WPI (Water poverty index).
Ponderación de varios criterios para calcular el IPH (Índice de pobreza hídrica).
Resource
Access
Use
Environment
Capacity
Same weight
20
20
20
20
20
Emphasis on resource
40
15
15
15
15
Emphasis on access
15
40
15
15
15
Emphasis on use
15
15
40
15
15
Emphasis on environment
15
15
15
40
15
Emphasis on capacity
15
15
15
15
40
In this study, it has been used the same weight for assessing WPI because of that prioritizing is not considered for evaluation of this sub-basin. So that, equation (1) is described as follows:
The results of WPI were calculated out of 100 and were compared to research carried out by the Ecology and Hydrology centre of Wallingford. In 2003, the Ecology and Hydrology centre of Wallingford (Sullivan et al., 2003, see also http://www.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk/research/WPI/) classified various countries in terms of water poverty based on the WPI index into five categories: i) low (68-78); ii) low-moderate (62-67.9); iii) moderate (56-61.9); iv) high (48-55.9) and severe (35-47.9).
Resources (R)
This criterion determines natural access to water resources in the studied area. The high values of this criterion show that there is a great potential for using the annual and seasonal variability that is assessed by two criteria of availability and variability. The availability (R1) indicates how population pressures on available water resources (Alessa et al., 2008). As shown in equation (3), this criterion is measured by per capita water resources and will be normalized using the maximum method.
Where Xi is the number of water resources per capita (m3), Xmin and Xmax are maximum and minimum values of all the studied districts.
The second variable, the variability (R2) means the coefficient of rainfall variation, which is used to estimate this criterion. The higher value of rainfall variation shows the lower availability of water resources in temporal and spatial scale. Less certainty implies the hazards of climate change and the vulnerability of resources (Hamouda et al., 2009). To compute this parameter, the monthly recorded rainfall data were arranged considering 18 rain-gauge stations from Borujerd-Dorood watershed during the 42-year up to 2017. After that, in the purpose of computing rainfall variation coefficient of these rain-gauge stations, the mean annual rainfall and standard deviation for each station were calculated. When the standard deviation is equal to or more than 30%, we considered that it occurs the most vulnerable situation (Babel & Wahid, 2009). Using equation (4), the values of the mentioned index were normalized (Van Ty et al., 2010).
Where Xi is the coefficient of rainfall variation related to each region and, if Xi ≥ 0.3, R2 represents equal to 1. Finally, the resources rating (R) results from the following equation (5):
Access (A)
Ample access to water resources and sanitation will persuade society to a better comply with health policies. This index shows a population with adequate access to enough amounts of safe drinking water and health to get greater well-being (Hamouda et al., 2009). Enough access to water leads to less time in collecting water, which can be used for economic and productive activities. This part is calculated using two criteria for access to drinking water supply (A1) and improved sanitation (A2) as shown in equation (6).
Where Xs and Xw identify the population having access to sanitation and safe drinking water in the studied territory, respectively. Finally, the access criterion (A) is calculated following the next equation (7):
Use (U)
Water consumption examines the amount of water usage and the way of exploitation of water resources. The main parts of water uses are domestic water use and agricultural water use. Firstly, the domestic water use (U1) represents the current situation of consuming water resources in daily activities (cooking, sanitation, and washing) as well as its future prediction (Cullis & Regan, 2004; Jemmali, 2017). This index is measured by daily water consumption per capita and is normalized by the maximum method equation (8).
Where Xi stands the domestic water use and Xmin is defined as the minimum of required water for domestic sanitation. The daily water per capita for each person was set up to 20 litres (WHO/ UNICEF, 2000). Xmax represents the maximum amount of water that meets all the needs of domestic water use reaching 100 litres per capita per day (Howard & Bartram, 2003). Agricultural water use (U2) is included in this sub-category, which indicates the available irrigation facilities in a given area. The developing of agriculture plays an important role in the economic growth and reduction of poverty, in other words, agriculture has led to a huge contribution to living improvement (Han & Zhao, 2005). For evaluation of agricultural water use, the ratio between irrigated land and the total cultivated land (equation 9) is used (Sullivan et al., 2003):
Where Xi illustrates the irrigated land and X is the total cultivated land, which is calculated as follows (equation 10):
Environment (E)
The maintenance of the environmental quality and health of ecosystems has great importance for achieving sustainable water resources uses. Considering the exploitation of surface water resources as well as serious concerns about severe damage to the river ecosystems, the evaluation of river hydrological changes is a priority in Iran. This criterion is described by three sub-criteria. The base flow (E1) is a part of the streamflow that responds to the rainfall and is mostly related to evacuated water from underground water storage. In this study, a one-parameter algorithm method was used which is a type of return-numerical filter method. This method merely needs the determination of the recession constant parameter (K), which is calculated in this study using the subsonic flow branch (equation 11) (Eckhardt, 2008).
Where K is an abbreviation for recession constant parameter and qb means the values of the discharge.
The vegetation coverage (E2) represents a key factor controlling the disruption of the natural ecosystem and hydrological cycle, soil erosion and river sedimentation (Hamouda et al., 2009). It was calculated following the equation (12).
Where Xi is the amount of vegetation coverage and X represents the total area including vegetation coverage and other land uses.
The Q95 index of flow is the precise estimation of streamflow in rivers. It is one of the basic elements for the management of surface water resources, especially, the implementation of proper measures as a result of flood and droughts. Overall, the reduction of the environmental flow in a stream during a long period will have negative and domino effects on vegetation and animal societies on the margins of rivers and aquatic life (Smakhtin, 2001). The Q95 index is equal to the discharge with a probability of occurrence of more than 95% in a flow duration curve. This sub-criterion is standardized using the equation below:
Where Xi is the value of Q95 in each basin and Xmin and Xmax are the lowest and highest values of Q95 in each basin, respectively. Then, the environment criterion is obtained from equation 14:
Capacity (C)
It can be defined by the ability of people to manage water. Two sub-criteria of social capacity and economic capacity are used to assess this part. The Social capacity (C1) is divided into two sub-indexes including literacy rate (C1i) and economically active population (C1ii). The literacy rate is defined as the percentage of the educated population aged 15 and over. The highest values of this index represent the more literate people who can read, access to information, understand water issues, and, in some cases, can take proceedings on water management (Brooks et al., 2005). Computation process is based on the equation 15, where Xi is the literate population and X is the total population.
The economically active population is described as a percentage of the population of 10-60 years with the physical power that can face with poverty and water tension and the higher values represent people with a high capacity to struggle against water changes (Pandey et al., 2011). It was calculated using equation 16, where Xi is the population between 10 and 60 years old and X is the total population.
On the other, the economic capacity (C2) represents a sub-criterion related to the workforce information in non-agricultural employment (C2ii). The diversity of livelihoods in non-agricultural sectors increases the reliability of income and consequently, the economic capacity of people for the water management conflicts (Brooks et al., 2005). Equation 17 presents the final computation:
Where Xi is the population who works in non-agricultural sectors and X is the total population. Finally, the capacity can be achieved using equation 18:
Results and discussionWPI calculation for the Borujerd-Dorood Watershed
Based on the WPI variables presented in Table 2, we show the Borujerd-Dorood watershed WPI based on five components of “Resources”, “Access”, “Use”, “Environment” and “Capacity” respectively 13.70, 18.20, 12.55, 6.60 and 16.60. The scores on each component were then aggregated using the weighted multiplicative function, assuming equal weights for all components. The overall WPI was evaluated to be 67.65. In this regard, the assigned score for each element of WPI for the Borujerd-Dorood Watershed is presented in Figure 2. For the Borujerd-Dorood watershed, the WPI is 67.65 which are classified as low-moderate water poverty.
Water Poverty Index (WPI) variables used in the study.
Variables del índice de pobreza hídrica (IPM) utilizadas en el estudio.
Resource
Availability (l/day)
The average height of long-term rainfall (mm)
Percentage of rainfall difference with a long-term average
Annual Rainfall (mm)
587.53
456.15
-31.90
286.20
Access
Drinking water supply (%)
Indicator of healthy drinking water (%)
Water-covered population (%)
74.14
76.40
99.80
Uses
Agriculture (106 m3)
Industry (106 m3)
Drinking (106 m3)
508.30
2.43
4.76
Environment
Average discharge (m3/s)
Shallow discharge (1000 m3)
Deep discharge (1000 m3)
Number of deep wells
Number of shallow wells
4.46
38838
130464
800
605
Capacity
Literate population
Active economic population
Population working in the non-agricultural sector
317758
293617
65321
Data source: Water Office, Agricultural part, and Water and Wastewater Organization at Borujerd County.
Comparison of Indicator Criteria of Water Poverty (A) and WPI (B) in the Total Basin of Iran (green dotted line and green bar) and the Borujerd-Dorood Watershed (red dotted line and red bar).
Comparación de los criterios del indicador de pobreza hídrica en el total de Irán (línea de puntos y barra verdes) y la cuenca de Borujerd-Dorood (línea de puntos y barra rojas).
Comparison between Borujerd-Dorood watershed and other regional and global studies
The values of each element of WPI and the value of WPI are presented for different countries by Lawrence et al. (2002). In Figure 2, a comparison between the general conditions of Iran and the studied watershed is included. For the total of Iran, the water poverty index summarized 60.4 points (resources: 8.6, access: 14.8, capacity: 15.5, use: 13.5 and environment: 9.8), which was ranked the 58th among 147 countries (Lawrence et al., 2002). This comparison emphasizes that due to the unfair situation of the spatial distribution of water resources, as well as, other related factors in different parts of the country (Mohammad Jani & Yazdanian, 2014), the value of WPI cannot be an appropriate representative for all the spots. As mentioned above, geographic variations in relevance to water consumption and access to it are of great importance, so that, it exists a remarkable difference among regions and countries in terms of access to water resources (Mohammad Jani & Yazdanian, 2014). These variations are highly significant and evident in communities even in nearby neighbourhoods (Sullivan et al., 2006). The WPI values for 147 countries, which are to some extent provided with sufficient data on different components of the index, can be summarized as follows:
The highest index belonged to Finland with 78 and the lowest was for Haiti with 35.1 (the more score countries rank, the less water poverty they will face).
Most countries that have high WPI are between developed or developing countries with sharp growth.
South Africa, despite its low rating (5.6) in terms of its resources, has been able to get a good sum by gaining a high score on other indicators such as Human Development Index (HDI) and Falkenmark. This matter reflects applicable and effective policies in this country for the expansion and management of water resources.
A large number of countries, especially populated countries such as China and India, face high and severe water poverty, which shows the urgent need to develop water resource management policies in these countries (Cho et al., 2010; Connor, 2015; Asiabi-Hir et al., 2018; Koirala et al., 2020).
Challenges and future goals to be achieved
WPI paves a way for decision-makers to prioritize prospect development plans in the water management and planning, as well as, to determine sectors of greatest need (Mohammad Jani & Yazdanian, 2014). According to Figure 2, the Environmental conditions ranked the lowest score with 6.60 followed by Uses with 12.55. Therefore, these two elements should be considered as a high priority over other elements.
Human activities in Iran undoubtedly can manipulate water environment diverted from water flows and storage capacity. The major issue is using huge amounts of water for food production, which naturally belongs to sustain environmental services purposes (Mlote et al., 2002). These environmental goods and services ease life for most Iranian people, and water managers and policy-makers ought to maintain these functions properly by taking informed decisions. Furthermore, it is considered that the maintenance of the ecosystem plays a more vital role in the survival of other species especially in ‘key species’ (WCED, 1987). This more eccentric view is also included in the structure of the WPI, “as water for the environment is considered as a fundamental prerequisite for sustainability and the principles of Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992)”.
In general, land degradation process in Iran, changes in plant cover for agriculture, grazing and/or logging, urbanization, infrastructural development, are accelerating desertification, which is the main responsible anthropogenic process devastating the natural and rural ecosystems (Kiani-Harchegani & Sadeghi, 2020a). Population growth and improvement in economic activities result in big changes in vegetation (Muoghalu, 2009). This problem could be addressed by monitoring the causes of vegetation degradation in the watersheds at the Borujerd County, and determining the possible dramatic changes in natural vegetation types, which have occurred, as well as taking necessary measures to reduce hem (Ariapour et al., 2014). Also, new developments related to wastewater treatment and reuses should be considered as other authors in arid areas recommended when issues related to the balance model among transfers, groundwater, desalination and consumption appears (Jodar-Abellan et al., 2019b, 2019a).
According to the FAO (2008) report, the distribution of water withdrawal by Iran for the three-large water-consuming sectors includes agriculture 93% (irrigation and livestock watering), water supply 6% (domestic/municipal use) and industry 1% (Figure 3A). It is evident that if the amount of water allocated to agriculture sectors can be organized efficiently by local authorities, it can play a leading role in sustainable development scenarios in Iran and the studied area. The total area provided for irrigation is roughly 8.13 million ha in 2003, compared to 7.26 million ha in 1993. About 62% of that region is irrigated by groundwater (Figure 3B). Surface irrigation is the main irrigation technology used in Iran, including 92% of the area equipped for irrigation (Figure 3C). Localized and sprinkler irrigation cover 5 and 3% respectively, compared to only 0.6% each in 1993 (FAO, 2008).
Water status in Iran (withdrawal by sector, source and techniques of irrigation).
(FAO, 2008)
Estado del agua en Irán (extracción por sector, fuente y técnicas de riego).
(FAO, 2008)
Irrigation efficiency is commonly low, 33% on the total average at the national level. This makes waterlogging and salinization in the irrigated areas, which are significant problems in Iran, especially in the Karoon basin. This implies that the government heavily subsidized delivered water, which is essentially one of the underlying reasons for the low irrigation efficiency throughout the country (FAO, 2008). Since further abstraction of water storage will be costly and in future more amounts of water need to be assigned in other water use portions (drinking water, industry, and environment), more attention must be given to water-saving patterns than to further improvement of the irrigated area: more demand management, as opposed to the current supply management, practised, canal and watercourse lining, sprinkling and other types of pressurized field irrigation, land levelling and so on (Smedema, 2003).
Paying attention to our results and the literature used to develop Table 1 (Manandhar et al., 2012; van der Vyver, 2013; Cho & Ogwang, 2014; Thakur et al., 2017; Jafari Shalamzari, & Zhang, 2018; Asiabi-Hir et al., 2018; Koirala et al., 2020), we summarized the possible recommended and strategies that can be followed in the studied watershed:
Drinking water need should be considered as a high priority in mountain areas.
Assuring the future urban water requirements by changing the agricultural water in mountain areas rights into using freshwater (from brooks, rivers, springs well, etc.) with using treated effluents.
Avoiding using high-quality urban water to build green spaces, and allocating low-quality water for this plan. Cut off the water supply to industries, which have not taken practical stratagems for treating and reusing their wastewater.
Carrying out research programs in mountain territories for the establishment of flexible criteria for the safe and sound reuse of wastewater.
Replacing freshwater with treated effluents in agriculture requires introducing farmers to the positive and economic benefits of using wastewater, and consequently encouraging them to replace freshwater with effluents. This in itself requires research and study on the sanitary, economic and environmental impacts of using wastewater for agriculture and the artificial recharging of groundwater resources.
Conclusions
To sum up, the value of WPI was calculated in the Borujerd-Dorood considering as effective factors: water resources, access, capacity, use, and environment. The WPI summarized 67.65 which represents low to moderate water poverty (Sullivan et al., 2003). The issue of the water quality resources was confirmed, but also its upward trend of degradation by the sources of pollution from different parts of the urban, industrial, and agricultural areas. Therefore, we suggest urgent actions and increasing attention to develop and manage water resources in the Borujerd-Dorood Watershed. The rate of discharge in the studied area may be higher than other arid basins, but the amount of use, access, environment, and capacity is in such a situation that will put the water status in poor conditions. We stated that our findings might be effective for the decisions related to the development and management of water resources in different mountainous regions of Iran, especially in the studied area. It is recommended that further research should be undertaken in the following areas: i) calculation of WPI using different weights and using hierarchical analysis method in different areas; ii) considering the sub-index of draught in the resource section.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the help provided by Water Authority, Agricultural part, and the Water and Wastewater Organization of Borujerd County, without whose help this work would never have been possible.